Latest StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 12/13/2017
E.g., 12/13/2017

Thursday's Campaign Round-Up, 12.7.17

12/07/17 12:00PM

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* According to the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) is likely to appoint Lt. Gov. Tina Smith (D) to fill Al Franken's (D) Senate vacancy. Under the scenario described in the article, Smith would serve until a special election next November, but she wouldn't run for the seat.

* If Doug Jones (D) has any chance of success in Alabama's Senate special election, he's going to need strong support from African-American voters. With that in mind, the Washington Post reports that Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) is organizing a series of events for this weekend featuring Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). Sewell, Booker, and Lewis are black.

* Republican strategist John Weaver, who helped run John McCain's and John Kasich's presidential campaigns, announced yesterday's he's contributed to Doug Jones' campaign. Mark Salter, another former McCain aide, has done the same thing.

* In Tennessee, former two-term Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) has decided to run for the U.S. Senate next year, hoping to succeed Sen. Bob Corker (R), who's retiring. Though Tennessee is a red state, Bredesen, who's also a former Nashville mayor, easily won his gubernatorial campaigns in 2002 and 2006.

* Though Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) isn't considered vulnerable next year, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) is apparently under pressure from Donald Trump to run against King next year.

* In Ohio, Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) has decided to end his gubernatorial campaign and will instead be state Attorney General Mike DeWine's (R) running mate in 2018.

read more

Image: U.S. President Trump listens to  Speaker Ryan as he gathers with Republican House members after healthcare bill vote at the White House in Washington

Paul Ryan eyes Medicare cuts, and he thinks Trump may help

12/07/17 11:06AM

The Republican plan has never been a secret: in the broadest sense, the party is guided by a vision of shrinking government revenues through reckless tax breaks, and then using the resulting deficits to demand sweeping cuts to social-insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Donald Trump, however, told the nation that he had no use for the usual GOP game. As a candidate, the Republican said he liked the idea of having the wealthy pay more in taxes, not less, and promised never to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. Indeed, in his campaign kick-off speech, Trump said he’d make no cuts to the popular programs, and bragged about the vow via Twitter over and over and over again.

Pundits quickly labeled Trump a "populist," and working-class members of the GOP base swooned.

Keep that in mind when reading the Washington Post's report on House Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) plans for what his party will do after it approves massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday that congressional Republicans will aim next year to reduce spending on both federal health care and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce America's deficit.

"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit," Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio show. "... Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements -- because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking."

Ryan said that he believes he has begun convincing President Trump in their private conversations about the need to rein in Medicare, the federal health program that primarily insures the elderly.

There's a lot to this, but let's focus on just two angles. The first is recognizing the audacity of Paul Ryan's shameless scam.

The House Speaker apparently expects Americans to believe it's important to "tackle the debt and the deficit," despite the fact that Ryan voted for both of George W. Bush's tax cuts, both of George W. Bush's wars in the Middle East, Medicare Part D, and the Wall Street bailout -- none of which Republicans even tried to pay for.

More to the point, if the Wisconsin congressman had even the slightest interest in balancing the budget, he wouldn't be championing a tax plan that adds $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. It's a bit like listening to an arsonist demand money to rebuild the home he just burned to the ground: the person responsible for creating the problem shouldn't whine about how eager he is to get others to fix the problem.

read more

An employee at a money changer counts $100 bills.

As the wealth gap grows, GOP tax plan would make it worse

12/07/17 10:02AM

One of the core problems with the Republican tax plan is that it intends to solve problems that don't exist. For example, the GOP is predicted on the assumption that big corporations don't have enough money to make capital investments, which is why it's necessary to slash the corporate tax rate.

In reality, that's backwards: corporate profits are already at an all-time high, and according to CEOs, giving corporations a giant tax break won't spur new investments, anyway.

But the inverse is also true. Just as the Republican plan solves problems that don't exist, it also ignores problems that do exist. The Washington Post had an item yesterday on the wealth gap.

The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff. That share is higher than it has been at any point since at least 1962, according to Wolff's data, which comes from the federal Survey of Consumer Finances.

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

Those are, to be sure, dramatic findings. But they arrive at a time when Congress' Republican majority appears determined to make this problem vastly worse.

read more

File Photo: Rhino 500 handguns are on display at the National Rifle Association (NRA) Annual Meetings and Exhibits on April 14, 2012 in St. Louis, Missouri.  (Photo by Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images, File)

Following mass shootings, House GOP votes to expand gun rights

12/07/17 09:20AM

It's rare to see bipartisan agreement in Congress on any kind of legislation related to gun policy, but Democrats and Republicans recently agreed to a modest measure to improve national background check system.

But before the proposal could pass the House, Republicans decided to add something to it.

The House approved a Republican bill on Wednesday making it easier for gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines.

The "concealed carry" bill is the first gun legislation in Congress since mass shootings in Nevada and Texas killed more than 80 people. The House approved, 231-198.

The Associated Press' report added that the change "is a top priority of the National Rifle Association," which helps explain why GOP lawmakers made this change to an otherwise bipartisan bill.

The point of the policy is to effectively override state-based conceal-carry restrictions. As the New York Times' article explained, "Some states ... require that permit applicants have live-fire experience and safety training, along with a clean criminal history. Others are more lenient, and a dozen states do not even require a permit. The House bill would not force states to change their own laws, but it would treat a concealed-carry permit like a driver's license, letting individuals allowed by one state to carry a concealed weapon with them into another state."

As a political matter, it's likely that the House bill will struggle in the Senate, where the bill will need 60 votes, which means the bipartisan effort on the background check system will die because of House Republicans' efforts to approve the NRA-backed measure.

read more

Image: Trump announces in Washington that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in Washington

Does Trump have 'a full understanding' of his new Israel policy?

12/07/17 08:40AM

When Donald Trump delivered remarks yesterday announcing his new U.S. policy in Israel, the president seemed eager to tell the world how impressed he is with himself. "While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise," he said, "they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering."

Ordinarily, when a president announces a dramatic shift in foreign policy, he'll explain why the change advances U.S. interests. Yesterday, however, Trump didn't bother. Indeed, a Washington Post report suggested he may not fully understand what he just did.

Several advisers said he did not seem to have a full understanding of the issue and instead appeared to be focused on "seeming pro-Israel," in the words of one, and "making a deal," in the words of another. [...]

The debate came to a head at a White House meeting Nov. 27 to hash out the waiver issue. According to people briefed on the meeting, Trump repeated his earlier assertions that he had to follow through on his campaign pledge, seemingly irritated by objections over security and the break with previous policy.

"The decision wasn't driven by the peace process," one senior official said. "The decision was driven by his campaign promise."

The circumstances are more than a little scary. During the campaign, some of Trump's allies and donors told them they cared deeply about the United States moving its embassy to Jerusalem and a diplomatic recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The then-Republican candidate agreed to their appeals without any meaningful understanding of the position he was endorsing.

As president, Trump started with a political posture -- make his base happy, do what other modern presidents wouldn't do -- and worked backwards, instructing his staff to formulate a policy that would bolster his political calculation.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson advised him not to do this, and he didn't care. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis encouraged the president to pursue a different course, and Trump ignored him, too. U.S. allies from across the globe implored the president to be more responsible, and Trump paid them no mind.

Because in the end, the president cared less about pursuing a sensible policy and more about saying "I am delivering" for the cameras.

read more

Image: POLITICS-US-TRUMP

Trump Jr invents a 'privilege' to avoid Russia scandal questions

12/07/17 08:00AM

One of the most important events in the Trump-Russia scandal occurred at Trump Tower last summer. Top members of Donald Trump's inner circle met with Russian nationals, and after the public learned of the discussion, Donald Trump Jr. issued a written statement saying participants "primarily discussed" an adoption program, which was "not a campaign issue."

What the statement failed to mention was that the point of the meeting was for the Republican campaign to acquire stolen information from the Russian government, which had offered to provide dirt to the Trump campaign about Hillary Clinton. The written statement about the meeting, in other words, wasn't true.

It therefore mattered quite a bit when there were news accounts suggesting the president personally helped write the deceptive press statement -- suggesting Donald Trump Sr. participated directly in misleading the American public about his campaign coordinating with Russia.

If a sitting president participated in a cover-up, that's an important piece of information. And so, when Donald Trump Jr. testified behind closed doors yesterday to the House Intelligence Committee, he was asked about this. Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters what happened:

"[Trump Jr.] answered the overwhelming majority of our questions. There was one significant area though where he declined to answer. He acknowledged having discussed the June 9th meeting and the emails that went into establishing that meeting after those emails became public. He acknowledged discussing that matter with his father, but refused to answer questions about that discussion on the basis of a claim of attorney-client privilege. In my view, there was no attorney-client privilege that protects a discussion between father and son."

Just so we're all clear, Donald Trump Jr. isn't an attorney. Donald Trump Sr. isn't an attorney, either. Neither is a client of the other.

And yet, the president's son, unwilling to answer questions about a key area of interest, decided that since there was a lawyer around during a conversation with his father, he can now refuse to answer the Intelligence Committee's questions.

No, seriously. That's what he said.

read more

Wednesday's Mini-Report, 12.6.17

12/06/17 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Quite a scene in southern California: "The hills north of Los Angeles were burning Wednesday as the wildfires that have already devoured a large swath of Ventura County were now threatening the nation's second-largest city."

* Whether he'll run unopposed is unclear: "Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Wednesday he would seek re-election in March 2018, setting the stage for the 65-year-old to extend his dominance of the country's political landscape into a third decade."

* Isn't it a little late for these California Republicans to recognize their mistake? "Though the House and Senate have voted to repeal the deduction for state income taxes in Republican tax overhaul plans, it isn't dead yet. California Republicans are pushing for an income-tax deduction in the final tax bill being worked out by lawmakers in a House-Senate conference committee on tax legislation."

* The Summer Zervos suit is worth watching: "President Donald Trump is immune from state court action, his attorney argued Tuesday in opposing a defamation lawsuit by a former 'Apprentice' contestant who says Trump sexually assaulted her in 2007."

* The Republican impact on the judiciary is the most important story most Americans haven't heard anything about: "Nine confirmations in little more than a month have lifted the total number of judges confirmed during the Trump presidency to 16. Along with the major prize -- Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch -- Trump can say he got more appellate court justices confirmed at this date in his presidency than any predecessor since Republican Richard Nixon."

* Remember when Trump, as a candidate, said he could eliminate the trade deficit with China within a year or two? "The U.S. trade deficit jumped 8.6 percent in October as imports from China and other suppliers hit a record high ahead of the holiday shopping season, a Commerce Department report released Tuesday showed."

read more

Image: US-WEATHER

Trump impeachment measure receives 58 House Democratic votes

12/06/17 04:07PM

If you've been waiting for a congressional vote on the impeachment of Donald Trump, I have some good news and some bad news. The Washington Post reported on this afternoon's developments on the House floor:

Republicans and most Democrats in the House banded together Friday to stop an attempt to impeach President Trump.

Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) came to the House floor at 12:13 p.m. Wednesday to offer articles of impeachment under special House rules requiring a floor vote; he returned to the floor at 1:34 to force that vote.

Not surprisingly, it didn't go well. A total of 238 House Republicans voted to table the privileged resolution -- in effect, killing the measure -- and they were joined by 126 House Democrats, who also opposed it.

That said, 58 House Dems voted to advance the impeachment measure -- that's nearly a third of the entire conference -- while four Democrats voted "present." (Six members, five Dems and one Republicans, did not vote.) Both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) opposed it.

And at this point, some of Donald Trump's detractors are probably wondering why it didn't fare better. After all, there's a fair amount of public support for the president's impeachment and Trump is facing credible allegations of serious misdeeds, including obstruction of justice.

The trouble, however, is that while this was a Trump impeachment measure, its author had a different kind of impeachment push in mind.

read more

Image: Senate Holds Confirmation Hearing For Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

As Franken faces new allegations, Dems call for his resignation

12/06/17 01:51PM

When sexual misconduct allegations against Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) first surfaced publicly three weeks ago, the senator initially offered an inadequate answer to questions, but soon after he tried to respond more responsibly and welcomed an investigation from the Senate Ethics Committee. His career, it seemed, wasn't necessarily over.

It wasn't long, however, before other women came forward. Politico published a piece this morning with claims from an unnamed former Democratic congressional aide, who said Franken "tried to forcibly kiss her" after a taping of his radio show in 2006. Soon after, the Minnesotan's political support evaporated.

More than a half dozen Democratic women senators on Wednesday called on their embattled colleague, Sen. Al Franken, to resign after multiple women have come forward alleging that the Minnesota lawmaker harassed them or engaged in sexual misconduct.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Kamala Harris of California, Patty Murray of Washington and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, all put out statements within minutes of each other saying it was time for Franken to go.

Since that NBC News piece was published, the total number of Democratic senators calling for Franken's resignation grew to 18 -- and counting.

If it sounds like Franken's political career is coming to an end, that's because it is.

read more

Pages